I was approached by HR on LinkedIn for this role, and the initial round was relevant and well-structured. It focused on my industry experience, previous work, and expectations from the position, exactly what an interview should do. The next step was a detailed copy test with a strict two-day deadline. The expectations were clearly communicated, and I completed and submitted the assignment within the timeline. At this stage, the process felt fair. The experience began to deteriorate during the in-office HR round. Instead of discussing cultural alignment or role expectations, the conversation fixated almost entirely on my “job stability.” Despite having spent over 2–2.5 years in previous roles (which is common in ad agency environments), I was repeatedly questioned about my switches. The tone felt less like a discussion and more like a cross-examination. There was a visible emphasis on longevity within one organization, seemingly positioned as a moral benchmark rather than a professional choice. The questioning drifted into areas unrelated to the role, and the conversation at times felt dismissive. Adding “no offence” after an uncomfortable line of questioning does little to offset the impact. The final round with the MD continued this pattern. The discussion leaned heavily toward testing knowledge of very specific news items, with a tone that felt more interrogative than conversational. In the beginning, I was asked a caste-based question, something that should have no place in a professional interview. That was particularly disappointing. It was also surprising to see certain topics of global news being dismissed as “gossip,” while simultaneously being used as a benchmark to assess awareness. After completing four rounds, I received no communication from HR. For an organization that emphasizes structure and process, the complete lack of closure was telling. Even a brief rejection email would have reflected basic professionalism. The process is undoubtedly intensive. However, rigor should not come at the cost of relevance, respect, or basic candidate courtesy. Interviews should evaluate skills and fit — not attempt to diminish candidates for not fitting a narrow definition of “stability” or for not matching someone else’s preferred news diet.